×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

LDC Module 2: Development Standards

Review and weigh in on recommendations for the Land Development Code!

Though Module 1 content is included in this draft, we encourage you to focus your review on the Module 2 topics:

  • Article 9: Site and Structure Standards (pg. 187)
  • Article 10: Mobility and Connectivity (pg. 227)
  • Article 11: Subdivision Design and Improvement (Pg. 235)
  • Article 12: Parking, Loading, and Access (pg. 250)
  • Article 13: Environmentally Sensitive Lands and Natural Resources (pg. 275)
  • Article 14: Landscaping and Buffering (pg. 295)
  • Article 15: Exterior Lighting (pg. 320)

Minor revisions within Module 1 content (Articles 2-8) have been made and are described on page 17.  The substantive majority of those articles have not changed since the public draft was released in July of 2023.  The Consolidated Draft will incorporate revisions based on feedback received on that draft in addition to any comments received about the articles in Module 2, as well as Module 3.
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Add comment

Jessica Mortinger Apr 25 2024 at 10:45AM on page 266

Suggestion
This doesn't match the definitions section for bicycle parking
0 replies
in reply to criley's comment

criley Apr 25 2024 at 10:06AM on page 245

KSA 12-1808 not applicable to private sidewalks (my b)
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 9:59AM on page 245

change bicycle/rec path to shared use path and add definition
0 replies
in reply to Dave Cronin's comment

criley Apr 25 2024 at 9:53AM on page 232

(discussed w Dave, 5' is public)
0 replies
in reply to criley's comment

criley Apr 25 2024 at 9:51AM on page 232

condemnation is not a practice we have for sidewalks
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 9:17AM on page 232

Per Lawrence Pedestrian Plan
0 replies

Jessica Mortinger Apr 25 2024 at 9:05AM on page 350

Suggestion
KU on wheels is branded as KU Transportation Services
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 8:59AM on page 246

write out UGA
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 8:07AM on page 245

K.S.A. 12-1808 states the maintenance of sidewalks is the responsibility of the property owner. Remove HOA. Suggest cross referencing MSO sidewalk maintenance code here.
1 reply

criley Apr 25 2024 at 8:05AM on page 245

This speaks to the timing of construction which is the section above this. Clarify intent & suggest removing b to provide only one place in code for timing instructions for sidewalk
0 replies
in reply to criley's comment

criley Apr 25 2024 at 8:00AM on page 244

T2050 generally only refers to pedestrian facilities as sidewalks or shared use paths.
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:58AM on page 244

use of sidewalk, walkway, pedestrian way, and shared use path inconsistent. Suggest reviewing all instances of these words being used and assuring intent for differentiation.
1 reply

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:55AM on page 244

Suggest Planning Director not PC
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:55AM on page 244

applicant
0 replies
in reply to Dave Cronin's comment

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:53AM on page 234

Bicycle facilities
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:52AM on page 234

Add industrial. Mimics language from above section & industrial areas need bikeways too
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:48AM on page 234

delete new. Not used in other sections, also, major remodels should meet this section as well.
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:47AM on page 233

PC ? Not Planning Director? Would a Plat need to go to planning commission to receive this waiver when it otherwise could be reviewed administratively?
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:44AM on page 233

suggest change to vertical wayfinding, including bollards or signage
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:42AM on page 233

If this crosswalk section says "one or more of the following" and then identifies distinct lighting - this could mean that a crosswalk is otherwise not identified other than by a light pole/ floodlight.
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:37AM on page 232

bike parking facilities
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:36AM on page 232

Additional policy work being done on sidewalk material. Suggest simplify section and leave all to city engineer discretion.
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:36AM on page 232

Additional policy work being done regarding sidewalk material. You may want to leave this at simply the first bullet where the city engineer can authorize a variance at their discretion and delete the rest.
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:34AM on page 232

If sidewalks currently exist at the site, the sidewalk will be evaluated to determine if MSO design and ADA compliance standards are met. If sidewalks do not meet standards, they will be brought into compliance or an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future improvements would be required.
1 reply

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:28AM on page 231

suggest "applicant" instead of owner or developer.
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:24AM on page 230

Suggestion
In conflict with 20-1003 (c)(1)(ii)(a) which calls out a minimum of 2 access points with additional required per 2,000 VPD. Less access points is preferred by T2050 to reduce the number of conflict points with pedestrians and cyclists using sidewalks/bike lanes
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 7:15AM on page 227

Suggestion
streets and sidewalks and improvements in the Right-of-way...
0 replies

criley Apr 25 2024 at 6:55AM on page 227

Suggestion
T2050: Providing transportation choices (transit riding, biking, walking, and driving) that are comfortable for all ages, abilities, and all residents regardless of socioeconomic status.
0 replies
in reply to njk28's comment

Michael Almon Apr 18 2024 at 11:11PM on page 236

Suggestion
Referencing the reduction of congestion, and replying to “dependence” note – How about the reduction of single-occupancy cars, which is after all a Strategic Plan Key Progress Indicator CC-11?
0 replies
in reply to njk28's comment

Michael Almon Apr 18 2024 at 10:49PM on page 234

Suggestion
Replying to the question “why not?” about sidewalks not being used as bikeways - this Code section is a construction standard for NEW development. As such, the new Code shouldn’t reproduce the antiquated and dangerous status quo. Elsewhere in this document I have indicated that bikeways should be constructed on new and reconstructed arterial and collector streets, fully separated from both pedestrians and motor vehicles. Both bicyclists and pedestrians have expressed for years, a desire for facilities separated from each other that avoid dangerous conflicts. This is increasingly important with the advent of E-bicycles traveling at speeds up to 35mph. The residential streets WITHIN new subdivisions can be calmed adequately through narrower pavement and lower speed limits, and thus function safely for bicyclists. The new Code is an opportunity to plan for separated bikeways within arterial and collector rights-of-way planned to accommodate them. Existing sidewalks in existing neighborhoods will continue to be used by both bicyclists and pedestrians, because of the difficulty to retrofit dedicated bikeways into that context.
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 1:49AM on page 297

Question
Why have this table if the planted trunk caliper is the same for all trees?
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 1:38AM on page 239

Suggestion
This is a noble effort but unless grid development is mandated by code I doubt we're ever going to see a developer attempting to reintroduce it on a greenfield project. It would be incredibly cool to see, regardless.
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 1:23AM on page 219

Suggestion
These kinds of aesthetic requirements have been getting pulled out of design guidelines for the past decade. Maybe neoclassicism will come back into favor at some point in the future, but until then we can probably do without.
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 1:20AM on page 219

Suggestion
I really don't think architectural design should operate under a quota.
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 1:15AM on page 216

Most of East Lawrence arguably fits this description. I don't understand what is being prohibited or why.
0 replies
in reply to Saskia Kimball's comment

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 1:10AM on page 212

Comment also applies to section (g) below.
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 1:09AM on page 212

Suggestion
Is this section pulled from the existing city code? It feels like a holdover from another era and practically designed to keep density out of existing neighborhoods.
1 reply

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 12:58AM on page 207

Suggestion
Most new single family homes in Lawrence don't meet this requirement, so why are alternative housing types burdened with it?
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 12:53AM on page 206

Suggestion
I would prefer to see this section dropped entirely. Many beautiful, beloved historic buildings would fail to meet these requirements. Why is architecture being graded on a checklist?
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 12:44AM on page 205

Suggestion
I think trying to meet these (aesthetic and largely arbitrary) requirements tends to make large developments look worse, not better.
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 12:40AM on page 203

Suggestion
If this section doesn't also apply to single family detached development all it's doing is making it harder to build alternative forms of housing. Feels like a step backwards that completely misses the point of having these kinds of requirements.
0 replies
in reply to Saskia Kimball's comment

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 12:33AM on page 203

I now realize that this doesn't even apply to single family development... so it's even worse?
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 12:26AM on page 203

Suggestion
These requirements seem really weak. Nothing keeping a development from being all single family homes, one of which happens to have an ADU. Minimum proportions of alternative dwelling types?
1 reply

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 12:22AM on page 201

Suggestion
ADU overlap is strong here. These restrictions don't sound like a second "principal" building.
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 12:19AM on page 201

Suggestion
Language feels like a holdover from the early days of new urbanism. I get wanting to match overall scale but if there is an original building to remain I don't want to see a tacky clone of it ten feet away.
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 28 2024 at 12:07AM on page 199

Question
...and houses without garages?
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 27 2024 at 11:45PM on page 308

Question
So why is there an irrigation requirement for landscaping?
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 27 2024 at 11:34PM on page 323

Question
Why? Is this solely an aesthetic concern?
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 27 2024 at 11:30PM on page 321

Suggestion
Eliminate and just use the lumen requirement, you can't even buy these for general purpose lighting anymore.
0 replies

Saskia Kimball Mar 27 2024 at 11:26PM on page 318

Question
Why stake all trees? Seems like an unnecessary expense and a potential girdling risk if the straps are not maintained.
0 replies
View all